I. BACKGROUND

22 Plaintiff filed his Complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 23 without prepaying fees or costs on October 18, 2024. Compl.; Pl. IFP App. (ECF No. 2). 24 The Complaint names as defendants California Highway Patrol Golden Gate Division 25

26 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 27 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c). 2 The district court’s Local Rules are accessible on the district court’s website: 28 https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/rules/local-rules/. 1 (Kevin Hagler, Angelie Baker, and Dawn McGuckin), City of Fairfield Police Department 2 (Walt Tibbet, “Aagaard,” Gene Carter, and “Oviatt”), City of Vallejo Police Department 3 (Mat Mustard), Solano County Sheriff’s Office of Emergency 911 Services (Executive 4 Director), Solano County District Attorneys (Bryan Kim, Karen Jensen, Paul Sequeira, 5 Eric Cowdery, and Dana Vaugen), and Solano County Superior Court Judges D. 6 Stashyn William Pendergast III, Bradley Nelson, and Peter Foor. Compl. at 2-3 (ECF No. 7 1). There is no indication that any defendant has been served. See Docket. 8 Plaintiff alleges violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth 9 Amendments pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on “Law enforcement concealment 10 suppression of federal rule evidence 702 by failing to apply Daubert Trilogy Theory upon 11 Emergency Alert Plan Protocols with Solano County Sheriff’s Emergency 12 communications 911 OES.” Compl. at 4, 6. The events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims are 13 “Mishandled Credible threat 911 calls”; 11/05/2011 Willful neglect and disregard resulting 14 dereliction of duty 11/17/2011”; and “on duty police officer loss of life.” Compl. at 6. The 15 Complaint alleges damages in excess of $75,000, and seeks temporary and permanent 16 injunctive relief against Defendants “California Highway Patrol Golden Gate Division, 17 City of Fairfield Police Department, Solano County Sheriff’s Emergency Communications 18 911 Services, and the City of Vallejo Police Department.” Compl. at 5-6, 7-8 19 In the six weeks since filing his Complaint, Plaintiff filed eight (8) miscellaneous 20 motions. On November 18, 2024, Plaintiff also filed an ex parte motion for a Temporary 21 Restraining Order (“TRO”). See Pl. TRO (ECF No. 10); Pl. TRO Checklist (ECF No. 10- 22 1). The Court addresses Plaintiff’s ex parte TRO motion through separate findings and 23 recommendations. 24 II. DISCUSSION 25 A. IFP Application 26 Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed IFP. (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff has not, 27 however, provided sufficient information for the Court to determine whether to grant the 28 request. See Pl. IFP App.; Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) 1 (a plaintiff must allege poverty with “particularity, definiteness and certainty”) (citation 2 omitted). For example, Plaintiff left Question 2 regarding employment and Question 7 3 regarding dependents blank, and did not complete Question 3 regarding other income 4 (not selecting “Yes” or “No” boxes for 3(a)-3(f)). Plaintiff’s IFP application is therefore 5 denied without prejudice. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall 6 either file a complete application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs responding 7 to all questions, or pay the required filing fee. If Plaintiff submits a complete IFP 8 application and IFP status is granted, the Complaint will be screened as required by 9 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 10 B. Plaintiff’s Eight Other Miscellaneous Motions (ECF Nos. 3-9, 11) 11 Plaintiff has filed eight miscellaneous motions in the six weeks since initiating this 12 lawsuit. The Court rules on the motions as follows: 13 (1) On October 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “motion for joinder” of “all 14 named defendants.” (ECF No. 3.) This motion is denied because it is unclear what 15 this motion is seeking as all defendants identified in the document are defendants 16 already named in the Complaint. Compare id., with Compl. In addition, this motion 17 is also not signed by Plaintiff personally. See Pl. Mot. Joinder. If a party is 18 unrepresented by an attorney, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) requires that 19 “[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed” by a party 20 personally. In addition, the “paper must state the signer's address, e-mail 21 address, and telephone number.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). Plaintiff is instructed that 22 while he remains unrepresented, he must personally sign every pleading, motion, 23 and other paper submitted to the Court. See id. 24 (2) On October 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file 25 documents electronically in this action. (ECF No. 4.) The Court declines to grant 26 this request. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 133(a), 133(b)(2). This motion is also not 27 signed by Plaintiff personally. 28 / / / 1 (3) On October 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “motion to redact confidential 2 personal information Amended Dec. 1, 2023 Federal Rule of Evidence 702,” 3 redacting date of birth, Social Security numbers, and financial account numbers. 4 (ECF No. 5 at 2.) The motion attaches various redacted Fairfield Police 5 Department records. The Court interprets this filing as a motion to seal, and 6 denies it. While the information Plaintiff seeks to redact are proper subjects for 7 redaction, this motion is denied because Plaintiff failed to follow Local Rule 141 8 regarding requests to seal. This motion is also not signed by Plaintiff personally. 9 In addition, there is no motion pending before the Court that requires the Court to 10 review the submitted Fairfield Police Department records. Finally, this document 11 appears to be a discovery-related document. Discovery is served between the 12 parties, and should not be filed with the Court. Plaintiff filed his Complaint on 13 October 18, 2024, and his Complaint has not yet been screened due to 14 incomplete information. Even if Plaintiff declines to request proceeding IFP, there 15 is no indication that any defendant has been served or has any notice of this 16 lawsuit. The discovery stage, including the Rule 26(f) conference, initial 17 disclosures, and any discovery requests, has not yet begun. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18 26(d)(1) (“A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties 19 have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from 20 initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by 21 stipulation, or by court order.”). For future reference, Plaintiff is also directed to 22 follow Local Rules 140 and 141 regarding redactions and sealing of documents. 23 (4) On November 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for in camera review of 24 Plaintiff’s exhibits. (ECF No. 6.) This motion is denied because there is no motion 25 pending before the Court that requires the Court to review Plaintiff’s exhibits. As 26 described above, the Complaint has not been screened and the discovery stage 27 has not commenced. If this lawsuit continues to trial, the Court will set deadlines 28 for the parties to submit exhibit lists to the Court. This motion is also not signed by 1 Plaintiff personally. 2 (5) On November 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of 3 time. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff states that he seeks an extension through November 4 30, 2024 to “introduce additional co-defendants through extrinsic evidence.” Id. at 5 2. It is unclear what this means. Regardless, this motion is denied because there 6 are no pending court deadlines and therefore no deadlines to extend. This motion 7 is also not signed by Plaintiff personally. 8 (6) On November 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “motion for compulsory 9 joinder.” (ECF No. 9.) Unlike Plaintiff’s first motion for joinder (ECF No. 3), this 10 motion seeks to join defendants not currently named in the Complaint. See id. at 2 11 (identifying new defendants Solano County Public Defender’s Office, Department 12 of State Hospitals, Daily Republic News Reporter Jess Sullivan, and Melvin Hale). 13 This motion is also not signed by Plaintiff personally. This motion is denied as 14 unnecessary. Based on the current posture of this lawsuit, the proper procedure 15 for Plaintiff to add new defendants is to file an amended complaint. Under Federal 16 Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), Plaintiff may amend his Complaint “once as a 17 matter of course” either 21 days after serving the Complaint on Defendants or “21 18 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion 19 under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” This means that Plaintiff may 20 file an amended complaint at this time without seeking and receiving permission 21 from the Court or with the opposing parties’ written consent. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 22 15(b). 23 If Plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff must do so within 24 thirty (30) days of the date of this order. It should be titled “First Amended 25 Complaint” with reference to the appropriate case number. An amended 26 complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See 27 Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Plaintiff 28 is warned that a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not 1 suffice to state a claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. 2 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. To state a 3 claim on which relief may be granted, a plaintiff must allege enough facts “to state 4 a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim 5 has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court 6 to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 7 alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Any First Amended Complaint should clearly 8 identify all parties, the claims being brought, and against which defendants each 9 claim is being brought. As already instructed above, Plaintiff must personally sign 10 every pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). 11 (7) On November 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “motion to introduce witness 12 and evidence.” (ECF No. 8.) This motion is denied as premature. As described 13 above, the Complaint has not been screened and the discovery stage has not 14 commenced. If this lawsuit continues to trial, the Court will set deadlines for the 15 parties to submit witness and exhibit lists to the Court. This motion is also not 16 signed by Plaintiff personally. 17 (8) On November 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed a second request to seal 18 documents. (ECF No. 11.) This request is denied because there is no motion 19 pending before the Court that requires the Court to review these documents. In 20 addition, as described above, the Complaint has not been screened, the 21 discovery stage has not commenced, and the parties should not file discovery 22 with the Court. 23 C. Additional Instructions for Plaintiff 24 Plaintiff is further instructed as follows: 25 (1) When filing a motion with the Court, clearly state what relief 26 you are requesting from the Court and against which party. 27 (2) Do not file discovery or evidence with the Court unless ordered 28 to do so by the Court or unless there is a motion pending that requires the 1 Court to review the discovery or evidence in order to resolve the pending 2 motion. 3 (3) Do not file duplicative, frivolous, or serial motions. The Court 4 notes that apart from his ex parte TRO motion, Plaintiff filed eight different 5 motions, including two motions to seal and two motions for “joinder,” in the six 6 weeks after filing his Complaint. See Docket. Filing duplicative, frivolous, or serial 7 motions interferes with the Court’s ability to efficiently manage its heavy caseload 8 and creates unnecessary delay in the resolution of cases. Plaintiff must also wait 9 for the Court to review and issue a decision on each motion before filing a similar 10 or duplicative motion. In addition, once the Complaint is served and defendants 11 have appeared in the action, Plaintiff must also wait for the other side (i.e., the 12 defendants) to respond to Plaintiff’s motion. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230. 13 (4) Plaintiff is cautioned that the failure to follow the Federal Rules 14 of Civil Procedure, the district court’s Local Rules, or the Court’s orders 15 may result in the imposition of sanctions. 16 III. CONCLUSION 17 It is HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. Plaintiff’s IFP application (ECF No. 2) is DENIED without prejudice. Within 19 thirty (30) days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall either file a complete application to 20 proceed without prepaying fees or costs responding to all questions, or pay the required 21 filing fee. 22 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide Plaintiff with a blank copy of 23 the Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. 24 3. Plaintiff’s “motion for joinder” (ECF No. 3) is DENIED. 25 4. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file documents electronically in this action 26 (ECF No. 4) is DENIED. 27 5. Plaintiff’s “motion to redact confidential personal information Amended 28 Dec. 1, 2023 Federal Rule of Evidence 702” (ECF No. 5) is DENIED. 1 6. Plaintiffs motion for in camera review of Plaintiffs exhibits (ECF No. 6) is 2 | DENIED. 3 7. Plaintiffs motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 7) is DENIED. 4 8. Plaintiff's “motion to introduce witness and evidence” (ECF No. 8) is 5 || DENIED. 6 9. Plaintiff's “motion for compulsory joinder” (ECF No. 9) is DENIED. If 7 | Plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff must do so within thirty (30) days of 8 | the date of this order. It should be titled “First Amended Complaint” with reference to the 9 | appropriate case number. An amended complaint must be complete in itself without 10 || reference to any prior pleading. See Loux, 375 F.2d at 57; E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. 11 10. Plaintiff's second request to seal documents (ECF No. 11) is DENIED. 12 13 | Dated: December 2, 2024 C iy S \U 14 CHI SOO KIM 45 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28